Does this guy look like the Achilles heel that would topple the military/pharmaceutical, industrial complex or like a suggested conductor; functioning like a lightning rod for all the energy coming from pockets of the enraged masses?
Do biden; gates; fauci; trump; schwab and the rest of the elderly circus troupe look like they are in control of anything or like milquetoast muppets for those weak enough to still follow the narrative?
Please perfect your bot before you continue subjecting us to the free salad of words please??? Its so fucking annoying and says almost nothing. Didn't fall too far from the tree, huh?
If you address the natural (you) to complain about the artificial (bot) on yet another artificial system (www); then you want the artificial (bot) within the artificial (www) to behave more natural as to not break your suspension of disbelief.
Meanwhile...what if I represent natural adaptation to perceivable inspiration; while trying to break the artificial spell of suggested information, which makes it uncomfortable for others to ignore reality (perceivable inspiration) for fiction (suggested information)?
continue subjecting us
a) continuation (dying) is what subjects the temporary objectified (living) within.
b) suggesting in the name of others (us) ignores being the sole representative of one self (perceiving) within all (perceivable).
c) to consent to suggested information subjects yourself to the suggesting will of others. If you read and choose to respond; then you consent to whoever wrote it; hence subjecting yourself to suggested information; shaped by others. What you ignore is the need to resist that temptation for adaptation to perceivable inspiration.
salad of words
Does nature communicate sound towards the perceiving senses of those within in an disordered state? What if others suggest words to tempt one to ignore perceivable sound within the natural order; hence causing disorder through ignorance?
its so fucking annoying
Scenario a) someone suggests information; doesn't explain it, and you get fucking annoyed.
Scenario b) nature offers everything to your perceiving senses so that you can grow comprehension about it by adapting to it...would you get fucking annoyed at nature for your lack of comprehension; when everything perceivable is offered towards your free will of choice?
What if you are tempted to get fucking annoyed at others; while ignoring that the system sustaining you both represents the only origin for everything within? Those around you making suggestion do not represent the source of anything; but an expression of everything perceivable...your choice aka need (perceivable inspiration) or want (suggested information) shapes yourself within and others are tempting you to ignore need for want; hence destroying yourself with conflicts among those "fucking annoying" others.
says almost nothing
a) SAY; verb - "to utter in words"....what words has nature ever uttered?
b) how could the one perceiving within all perceivable perceive "nothing"? How could one thing (living) surrounded by everything (dying) experience nothing?
c) "almost" aka ALL MOST; which implies ONE LEAST. The latter (perceiving one) exists at the center of the former (perceivable all); which allows temporary growth (living) of the least within ongoing loss (dying) of the most.
d) if "nothing" isn't perceivable; then was it suggested to you and did you consent to that suggestion; hence perpetuating "nothing" within "everything" by tempting others to ignore the latter for the former; which brings me back to spreading the artificial (nothing) within the natural (everything).
Didn't fall too far from the tree, huh?
I ain't no fruit; I'm still the ONE seed within the soil of ALL, and the ripe fruits falling from the growth of the tree are utilized to distill nutrients to the process of growing. Instead of wasting your choice measuring ingredients within the cauldron of transmutation; why don't you question the foundation of alchemy...energy?
Those who seek proof ignore that everything perceivable is offered through constant change; which allows others to exploit such ignorance by suggesting affixed "truth" as proof; which can then be endlessly contradicted as "lie".
What does life prove and would that proof be disproved at death?
You are right i thought the same
These are all just puppets that dont represent the real people doing the planning. The best way is mass public disclosure, counter propaganda, etc.
These are all just puppets that don't represent the real people doing the planning.
Another deception in that line of thinking is the suggested "puppet-master". You ain't no master if you bind yourself to your puppets; instead you suggest others to puppeteer for you; since the audience only sees the puppets anyway.
To put this in a rhetorical perspective...the parasitic few suggest "actors"; while the consenting many ignore that responding to "directors" represents "reactors". Now let's put this back into the natural perspective...living (reactor) within the process of dying (director aka generator). This represents an aspect how rhetorical suggestion is utilized to corrupt ones natural comprehension of all perceivable.
Meanwhile in the audience: "Amber took a shit in Johnny's bed"...
Sleight of hand: "Master of puppets, I'm pulling your strings"..."Twisting your mind and smashing your dreams"..."Blinded by me, you can't see a thing"
The best way is mass public disclosure, counter propaganda, etc.
a) being moved from inception towards death represents the only "way" for the resisting life within.
b) best (want) vs worse (not want) represents your consent to suggested ways by others; while ignoring the to resist (need) the only way for life.
c) sleight of hand; reveal of method; public disclosure; accessibility; leaking of information etc. These are tools suggested by the few to the many. Why? Because this system offers ALL (perceivable) to each ONE (perceiving) and the so the parasitic few who exploit the ignorance thereof by the many, are mimicking perception (inspiration) by suggesting as much as possible (information).
The issue isn't availability; it's that each of the many willingly ignores perceivable inspiration (need) for suggested information (want); which a) puts them into the want vs not want conflict of reason against each other and b) allows the few making the suggestions to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) every suggested information. This is how they can reveal everything they do; while clouding it in so much disinformation; that the ignorant many cannot discern among the suggested...which they don't need to; since only perceivable represents the communicating source; not the suggestions of those within.
d) counter propaganda represents your choice to "not want" the same suggestion that other chose to "want". Both sides are fighting each other over a suggestion made by a 3rd party from outside the conflict (reason).
Suggestion represents the propaganda to tempt one to ignore perception. The perceivable sound comes before the suggested word. If one consents to the latter; one ignores to adapt to the former.
You are right
Right (want) vs wrong (not want)...same conflict of reason; caused by consent to suggested information. Perceivable nature doesn't require confirmation from those within; it demands adaptation; hence the struggle of the living to resist (need) the temptation (want) of being processed within dying.
The many are being domesticated by the suggestions of the few to communicate through the lens of reason aka agreement (want) vs disagreement (not want) about suggested information. That's conflict; not communication.
Does this guy look like the Achilles heel that would topple the military/pharmaceutical, industrial complex or like a suggested conductor; functioning like a lightning rod for all the energy coming from pockets of the enraged masses?
Do biden; gates; fauci; trump; schwab and the rest of the elderly circus troupe look like they are in control of anything or like milquetoast muppets for those weak enough to still follow the narrative?
Please perfect your bot before you continue subjecting us to the free salad of words please??? Its so fucking annoying and says almost nothing. Didn't fall too far from the tree, huh?
If you address the natural (you) to complain about the artificial (bot) on yet another artificial system (www); then you want the artificial (bot) within the artificial (www) to behave more natural as to not break your suspension of disbelief.
Meanwhile...what if I represent natural adaptation to perceivable inspiration; while trying to break the artificial spell of suggested information, which makes it uncomfortable for others to ignore reality (perceivable inspiration) for fiction (suggested information)?
a) continuation (dying) is what subjects the temporary objectified (living) within.
b) suggesting in the name of others (us) ignores being the sole representative of one self (perceiving) within all (perceivable).
c) to consent to suggested information subjects yourself to the suggesting will of others. If you read and choose to respond; then you consent to whoever wrote it; hence subjecting yourself to suggested information; shaped by others. What you ignore is the need to resist that temptation for adaptation to perceivable inspiration.
Does nature communicate sound towards the perceiving senses of those within in an disordered state? What if others suggest words to tempt one to ignore perceivable sound within the natural order; hence causing disorder through ignorance?
Scenario a) someone suggests information; doesn't explain it, and you get fucking annoyed.
Scenario b) nature offers everything to your perceiving senses so that you can grow comprehension about it by adapting to it...would you get fucking annoyed at nature for your lack of comprehension; when everything perceivable is offered towards your free will of choice?
What if you are tempted to get fucking annoyed at others; while ignoring that the system sustaining you both represents the only origin for everything within? Those around you making suggestion do not represent the source of anything; but an expression of everything perceivable...your choice aka need (perceivable inspiration) or want (suggested information) shapes yourself within and others are tempting you to ignore need for want; hence destroying yourself with conflicts among those "fucking annoying" others.
a) SAY; verb - "to utter in words"....what words has nature ever uttered?
b) how could the one perceiving within all perceivable perceive "nothing"? How could one thing (living) surrounded by everything (dying) experience nothing?
c) "almost" aka ALL MOST; which implies ONE LEAST. The latter (perceiving one) exists at the center of the former (perceivable all); which allows temporary growth (living) of the least within ongoing loss (dying) of the most.
d) if "nothing" isn't perceivable; then was it suggested to you and did you consent to that suggestion; hence perpetuating "nothing" within "everything" by tempting others to ignore the latter for the former; which brings me back to spreading the artificial (nothing) within the natural (everything).
I ain't no fruit; I'm still the ONE seed within the soil of ALL, and the ripe fruits falling from the growth of the tree are utilized to distill nutrients to the process of growing. Instead of wasting your choice measuring ingredients within the cauldron of transmutation; why don't you question the foundation of alchemy...energy?
Thanks for proving my point
Those who seek proof ignore that everything perceivable is offered through constant change; which allows others to exploit such ignorance by suggesting affixed "truth" as proof; which can then be endlessly contradicted as "lie".
What does life prove and would that proof be disproved at death?
You are right i thought the same These are all just puppets that dont represent the real people doing the planning. The best way is mass public disclosure, counter propaganda, etc.
Another deception in that line of thinking is the suggested "puppet-master". You ain't no master if you bind yourself to your puppets; instead you suggest others to puppeteer for you; since the audience only sees the puppets anyway.
To put this in a rhetorical perspective...the parasitic few suggest "actors"; while the consenting many ignore that responding to "directors" represents "reactors". Now let's put this back into the natural perspective...living (reactor) within the process of dying (director aka generator). This represents an aspect how rhetorical suggestion is utilized to corrupt ones natural comprehension of all perceivable.
Meanwhile in the audience: "Amber took a shit in Johnny's bed"...
Sleight of hand: "Master of puppets, I'm pulling your strings"..."Twisting your mind and smashing your dreams"..."Blinded by me, you can't see a thing"
a) being moved from inception towards death represents the only "way" for the resisting life within.
b) best (want) vs worse (not want) represents your consent to suggested ways by others; while ignoring the to resist (need) the only way for life.
c) sleight of hand; reveal of method; public disclosure; accessibility; leaking of information etc. These are tools suggested by the few to the many. Why? Because this system offers ALL (perceivable) to each ONE (perceiving) and the so the parasitic few who exploit the ignorance thereof by the many, are mimicking perception (inspiration) by suggesting as much as possible (information).
The issue isn't availability; it's that each of the many willingly ignores perceivable inspiration (need) for suggested information (want); which a) puts them into the want vs not want conflict of reason against each other and b) allows the few making the suggestions to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) every suggested information. This is how they can reveal everything they do; while clouding it in so much disinformation; that the ignorant many cannot discern among the suggested...which they don't need to; since only perceivable represents the communicating source; not the suggestions of those within.
d) counter propaganda represents your choice to "not want" the same suggestion that other chose to "want". Both sides are fighting each other over a suggestion made by a 3rd party from outside the conflict (reason).
Suggestion represents the propaganda to tempt one to ignore perception. The perceivable sound comes before the suggested word. If one consents to the latter; one ignores to adapt to the former.
Right (want) vs wrong (not want)...same conflict of reason; caused by consent to suggested information. Perceivable nature doesn't require confirmation from those within; it demands adaptation; hence the struggle of the living to resist (need) the temptation (want) of being processed within dying.
The many are being domesticated by the suggestions of the few to communicate through the lens of reason aka agreement (want) vs disagreement (not want) about suggested information. That's conflict; not communication.